TPP has provision banning requirements to transfer or access source code (Knowledge Ecology International)
I'm wondering how the GPL fares here, and how much money Microsoft spent lobbying to get this included in the TPP, or if the NSA has a role in this. One aspect of this provision is that governments cannot insist on source code transparency, for mass market software, even to address concerns over security or interoperability."
(Log in to post comments)
TPP has provision banning requirements to transfer or access source code (Knowledge Ecology International)
Posted Nov 10, 2015 1:43 UTC (Tue) by AdamW (subscriber, #48457) [Link]
You have to consider the entities that are actually parties to the TPP: national governments. The clause prevents the 'Parties' from requiring source code disclosure as a condition of software imports. It's not at all about open source licensing: it's rather about certain countries not wanting certain other countries to only allow them to sell software into that country if they disclose its source code to the government (you are free to draw your own conclusions about why some governments might wish to compel people selling software in their country to disclose its source code to the government, and why some countries which export software might not want their companies to be subject to such requirements). Note that the source code 'disclosure' in question is certainly not implicitly *public* disclosure, it is disclosure to the 'Party' to the TPP, i.e. the national government.
TPP has provision banning requirements to transfer or access source code (Knowledge Ecology International)
Posted Nov 10, 2015 3:58 UTC (Tue) by pr1268 (subscriber, #24648) [Link]
The clause prevents the 'Parties' from requiring source code disclosure as a condition of software imports.
Does this appear to be at odds with the GPLv2 (§ 3) or GPLv3 (§ 6)? While the TPP's specific provision banning the requirement that the recipient party demand the source code, it would seem to reason that they could still do so for GPL-licensed software. (I'm thinking of the likes of Redhat, Novell/SUSE, Canonical, etc. wanting to do business in TPP countries.)
The way I interpret this, based on your comment1, is that any distributor of GPL software sold in TPP nations would still have to honor source code requests due the GPL, despite the TPP clause absolving said distributor from having to do so.
Perhaps I answered my own question here... Discussion, anyone?
1 DISCLOSURE: I have yet to read either the KEI article or the TPP itself.
TPP has provision banning requirements to transfer or access source code (Knowledge Ecology International)
Posted Nov 10, 2015 6:51 UTC (Tue) by fredrik (subscriber, #232) [Link]
And as the first post mentions it doesn't block free software in the mass market, merely stops governments from making source code availability a condition for import of mass market software.
One might object that the regulation also blocks nations from demanding that all mass-market software must be open source. Maybe a such scenario doesn't matter much in reality, but it sure would have been interesting.
TPP has provision banning requirements to transfer or access source code (Knowledge Ecology International)
Posted Nov 10, 2015 10:26 UTC (Tue) by dakas (guest, #88146) [Link]
I think it could mean that intentional violations of the GPL's provisions regarding the distribution of corresponding source code (basically, the most frequent and obstinate kind of GPL violation we see particularly in connection with hardware devices such as phones and routers) could no longer be pursued by state attorneys as a crime. Since other parts of the TPP enforce criminal prosecution of commercial copyright violations, this two-pronged approach downgrades the most typical GPL violation as opposed to other copyright violations. It's not a significant downgrade as opposed to the current state of affairs but when basically every other willful copyright violation at commercial scale is made a state-prosecutable crime while the GPL's enforcement remains in the hand of private individuals with shaky standing due to massively distributed copyright, this creates a two-level copyright reign. Particularly with widely diverse copyright, a typical situation for Free Software, state-level prosecution would make systematic GPL violations a much more dangerous feat than they currently are. Basically the overall rules make governments the serfs and minions for big company's copyright interests, but these provisions here exclude GPL enforcement from the game. In addition, if entities under government control/funding (such as state universities) develop and distribute software under the GPL, they may not be allowed to enforce its conditions. Possibly they will not even allowed to use the GPL at all.
TPP makes proprietary software legal
Posted Nov 10, 2015 14:08 UTC (Tue) by bjartur (guest, #67801) [Link]
If a copyright holder chooses to publish source code under a copyleft license, then a Party (a State) doesn't have to mandate source code revealation explicitly. It need only enable copyright enforcement in accordance with licenses chosen by authors. Article 14.17 explicitly does not forbid source code revealation clauses in commercially negotiated contracts and, by extension, licenses. Copyright is more authoritarian than contracts, as copyright binds even those who don't sign any contracts. But assuming article TPP permits copyright and licenses, it permits copyright holders to waive copyright at their choice. A Party (State) just can't mandate that all software on its territory be copyleft licensed only.
That being said, Chapter 1 should explicitly define the commercial negotiation exception to include all forms of government procurement, including, but not limited to, government procurement as discussed in Chapter 15. I live in Iceland, which is not governed by a Party to TPP. If you live in a country governed by a Party to TPP, please do advise your government of the ambiguity of referring to commercial negotiation without explicitly including government procurement.
Thank you!
TPP makes proprietary software legal
Posted Nov 10, 2015 14:43 UTC (Tue) by dakas (guest, #88146) [Link]
TPP has provision banning requirements to transfer or access source code (Knowledge Ecology International)
Posted Nov 10, 2015 8:45 UTC (Tue) by MarcB (subscriber, #101804) [Link]
But also eliminating one of the inherent main advantages of free and open source software is likely to be a welcome benefit.
As I read it, this ban essentially bans two similar yet different things:
1. Requiring a closed-source vendor to provide the source code: "We accept proprietary software if we get (private) access to the source".
2. Requiring source code to be available to begin with: "We only accept free software with publicly available source code".
But I strongly disagree that the parties of TPP are national governments. Yes, they signed it, but the negotiators and beneficiaries are mostly not governments.
TPP has provision banning requirements to transfer or access source code (Knowledge Ecology International)
Posted Nov 10, 2015 15:07 UTC (Tue) by markhb (guest, #1003) [Link]
The Parties of the TPP are specifically defined in Section 1:Party means any State or separate customs territory for which this Agreement is in force;But there's another interesting wrinkle (although IANAL). The exact phrasing in the main paragraph of 14.17 says:
1. No Party shall require the transfer of, or access to, source code of software owned by a person of another Party, as a condition for the import, distribution, sale or use of such software, or of products containing such software, in its territory.(Emphasis added.) With respect to closed-source software, the EULA generally specifically states that ownership of the software remains with the software company. But, who "owns" a given piece of FLOSS in that sense? It's an interesting question and could mean that generally-available FLOSS (e.g., Debian) would not fall under this restriction at all.
TPP has provision banning requirements to transfer or access source code (Knowledge Ecology International)
Posted Nov 10, 2015 16:40 UTC (Tue) by fandingo (guest, #67019) [Link]
TPP has provision banning requirements to transfer or access source code (Knowledge Ecology International)
Posted Nov 11, 2015 15:39 UTC (Wed) by markhb (guest, #1003) [Link]
TPP gives an advantage to non-members?
Posted Nov 11, 2015 19:09 UTC (Wed) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link]
Real smart. Maybe the Office of the USTR has a problem with revolving doors and rent-seeking industries or something.
TPP has provision banning requirements to transfer or access source code (Knowledge Ecology International)
Posted Nov 11, 2015 21:24 UTC (Wed) by sramkrishna (subscriber, #72628) [Link]
TPP has provision banning requirements to transfer or access source code (Knowledge Ecology International)
Posted Nov 10, 2015 8:52 UTC (Tue) by gowen (guest, #23914) [Link]
You have to consider the entities that are actually parties to the TPP: national governmentsJust pulling this out for emphasis - this isn't about a constraining a vendor-customer licensing deal (GPL or otherwise) - its about precluding the interference of nation states in those licensing deal.
TPP has provision banning requirements to transfer or access source code (Knowledge Ecology International)
Posted Nov 10, 2015 10:25 UTC (Tue) by ovitters (guest, #27950) [Link]
Like RMS: If you get something with has software on it, you should be getting the source code as well. GPL is just a starting point in this.
TPP has provision banning requirements to transfer or access source code (Knowledge Ecology International)
Posted Nov 10, 2015 22:01 UTC (Tue) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]
TPP has provision banning requirements to transfer or access source code (Knowledge Ecology International)
Posted Nov 10, 2015 12:35 UTC (Tue) by gioele (subscriber, #61675) [Link]
> governments might wish to compel people selling software
> in their country to disclose its source code to the government
Maybe because of successful "open government initiatives"?
In 2004 and 2012 the Italian Parliament decided that all the software used in the public administration be "open source". Exceptions have been added later, but the core point remains: the public offices should use only programs whose source code is publicly available, except in very precise and rare cases. http://www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr/article/view/84
Similar laws are being pushed everywhere in EU and, I suppose, also in the Pacific area. A clause like this in an international treaty will easily kill the spirit and the letter of those laws.
TPP has provision banning requirements to transfer or access source code (Knowledge Ecology International)
Posted Nov 10, 2015 13:31 UTC (Tue) by gowen (guest, #23914) [Link]
Similar laws are being pushed everywhere in EU and, I suppose, also in the Pacific area. A clause like this in an international treaty will easily kill the spirit and the letter of those laws.Errant nonsense. As in a failure of basic reading comprehension. Governments can still specify whatever terms they like for software they buy and use themselves, as can other bodies, both public and private. This is about a government imposing those standards on private deals.
TLDR: It's about governments not telling me what software I can use - it's not about governments deciding what software they themselves use.
Governments can say "We will not buy software without source."
Governments cannot say "Our citizens are barred from buying software without source."
I don't know why this is proving hard to understand. (Actually, I understand perfectly well). People read what they want to read, even if its not there, as long as it confirms their prejudices.
Parties to the TPP
Posted Nov 10, 2015 16:54 UTC (Tue) by oldtomas (guest, #72579) [Link]
So I'd expect the last to be the real hands writing this things.
TPP has provision banning requirements to transfer or access source code (Knowledge Ecology International)
Posted Nov 10, 2015 1:56 UTC (Tue) by roc (subscriber, #30627) [Link]
If anything, this might be good for open-source software. This seems clearly aimed at situations like, say, the government of Australia demanding source access to Windows before allowing Windows to be sold in Australia (for non-critical-infrastructure at least). So if you're a government that doesn't trust Microsoft but has signed the TPP, you probably don't want to use Windows --- unless Microsoft just volunteers source access, which in fact they may.
TPP has provision banning requirements to transfer or access source code (Knowledge Ecology International)
Posted Nov 10, 2015 3:53 UTC (Tue) by pabs (subscriber, #43278) [Link]
TPP has provision banning requirements to transfer or access source code (Knowledge Ecology International)
Posted Nov 10, 2015 20:44 UTC (Tue) by jhhaller (guest, #56103) [Link]
TPP has provision banning requirements to transfer or access source code (Knowledge Ecology International)
Posted Nov 10, 2015 20:46 UTC (Tue) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link]
TPP has provision banning requirements to transfer or access source code (Knowledge Ecology International)
Posted Nov 10, 2015 22:20 UTC (Tue) by jhhaller (guest, #56103) [Link]
So, earlier sections imply a Library of Congress exemption process would be OK, but the above limits the ability to disregard parts of TPM. I haven't looked up how treaty disputes are handled, but could see countries complaining about other countries making exceptions which exceed 18.68 4. (c) rules.
18.69 is somewhat more disconcerting, as there are very few allowable exceptions for removing rights management information (RMI), but allows laws to exempt certain activities such as libraries and educational activities. I suppose that if a TPM exception allowed ignoring RMI, the RMI could be ignored, even if this clause does not allow removing the RMI through an exception process. But, requiring law changes instead of allowing an administrative review process, makes the process of adding RMI exceptions more cumbersome.
TPP has provision banning requirements to transfer or access source code (Knowledge Ecology International)
Posted Nov 11, 2015 12:21 UTC (Wed) by tok (subscriber, #44428) [Link]
TPP has provision banning requirements to transfer or access source code (Knowledge Ecology International)
Posted Nov 11, 2015 22:38 UTC (Wed) by kleptog (subscriber, #1183) [Link]
A treaty text doesn't in general get considered by a court. What is binding is the enabling legislation in a particular jurisdiction. If there is a difference between what the treaty text says and the enabling legislation, the legislation wins. Now, a treaty generally has provisions for handling disputes in these cases, such as creating a completely new court, which is how we get the WTO, ECJ, ECHR, etc... But even such a court has no power unless the national governments give it some. The US ignores WTO rulings all the time. Even in the EU, if there is a difference between EU regulations and national law, the Commission can jump up and down till it's blue in the face, the national law applies in that state until it is changed by the usual processes in that state. There are various remedies of course, but that doesn't apply to individuals.
So, for you and I the actual treaty text means nothing directly, watch for the enabling legislation, that's where the weasel words come in.
TPP has provision banning requirements to transfer or access source code (Knowledge Ecology International)
Posted Nov 14, 2015 9:21 UTC (Sat) by niner (subscriber, #26151) [Link]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_(European_Union)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_(European_Union)
TPP has provision banning requirements to transfer or access source code (Knowledge Ecology International)
Posted Nov 14, 2015 12:29 UTC (Sat) by kleptog (subscriber, #1183) [Link]
TPP has provision banning requirements to transfer or access source code (Knowledge Ecology International)
Posted Nov 11, 2015 21:58 UTC (Wed) by ttonino (guest, #4073) [Link]
Nothing new: previous attempts included that labeling of origin or of no-genetic manipulation origin would not be allowed.
Ah yes, the US of A and Freedom of Speech. And limiting thereof if money is involved.
